Antony Green's Election Blog

Section 44(i) Strikes again - Senator Canavan Makes it Three

The problems of Scott Ludlam, Larissa Waters and now Matt Canavan are over-simplified by saying there is a constitutional ban on dual citizens serving as members of parliament or standing for election.

In fact the Constitution does not make reference to “dual citizenship” and the constitutional issues involved are not entirely clear.

All three Senators have fallen foul of Section 44(i) of the Constitution that sets out a rather archaic definition of foreign allegiance. It has the potential to make it impossible for some Australian citizens to serve in the Australian Parliament or even contest election.

The difference in Senator Canavan’s case is that he is entitled to citizenship by descent rather than by birth, a category of citizenship that the High Court has not previously ruled on.

The first part of Section 44(i) sets out a disqualification for any person who

“Is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen [of a foreign power]“

This is the provision that has caught out Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters. Both were born in foreign countries and had foreign citizenship by birth. Both assert they were unaware of their dual citizenship, but by a previous court ruling both fall foul of Section 44(i).

The previous case was Sykes v Cleary in 1992. The case disqualified Independent MP for Wills Phil Cleary for holding an “office of profit under the Crown” by Section 44(iv) of the Constitution. This is another archaic part of Section 44, but I won’t delve into its difficulties here.

The Sykes v Cleary judgement also examined the citizenship status of Cleary’s election opponents. The Liberal candidate was born in Switzerland, was a naturalised Australian citizen, but still had Swiss citizenship. The Labor candidate was Greek born and caught in the same trap, a naturalised Australian but still possessing Greek citizenship.

The majority of the High Court ruled that both were disqualified as they had not attempted to rid themselves of their foreign citizenship.

The Court acknowledged that in some cases Australian citizens cannot rid themselves of foreign citizenship.

Rather than let foreign law define whether an Australian citizen can run for Parliament, the High Court adopted a test in Australian law that a candidate must make “all reasonable steps” to rid themselves of other allegiances.

Which is where Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters ran into problems. Neither had taken steps to rid themselves of their citizenship by birth. Both appear to be relatively clear extensions of the Sykes v Cleary ruling.

Senator Canavan is in a different category stemming from the second half of Section 44(i) which reads

"or is entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power"

Senator Canavan’s mother applied for Italian citizenship in 2006, and at the same time applied for her children, including Senator Canavan, who was 25 at the time.

Senator Canavan states he did not know of this application, has confirmed with the Italian authorities that he did not make the application, but has been informed that by that application he is a foreign resident Italian citizen.

But let's not go into the issue of the application having been made without his consent.

The matter here is that the grant has confirmed that Senator Canavan is ‘entitled’ under the second part of Section 44(i).

The High Court has not ruled on this sort of case, and the High Court’s consideration will set a precedent. Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters might now be encouraged to fight their own disqualification in conjunction with the Canavan case.

There are vast numbers of Australians who have an entitlement to foreign citizenship. If they apply to claim that foreign citizenship by providing relevant documentation, then they clearly fall foul of the test in Sykes v Cleary.

But what if you have an entitlement that you have never activated, or in some cases are not even aware of? Can a right you do not know of and have not applied for disqualify you under Section 44(i)?

Clearly there is some limit to how far Section 44(i) can extend. If Vladimir Putin granted Malcolm Turnbull all rights as a Russian citizen, it would be ridiculous to argue it would disqualify Malcolm Turnbull from sitting in the Australian Parliament. The High Court mentioned such a hypothetical example in the Sykes v Cleary ruling.

Senator Canavan’s case will set a benchmark on the rights of Australian citizens to run for parliament.

Will the Court extend its Sykes v Cleary judgment to apply to citizenship by inheritance, or will it make a more sensible test concerning whether an Australian citizen had attempted to claim their foreign right?

Alternatively, the High Court could step back from its previous rulings. In both Sykes v Cleary and the later Sue v Hill case, the minority of justice were of the view that taking out Australian citizenship and rejecting all previous allegiances was enough.

And in between those two positions are many shades of grey that this High Court case might help illuminate.

Comments

I don't see how the second part of 44(i) is relevant here Antony. "Senator Canavan states he ... has been informed that by that application he is a foreign resident Italian citizen." If correct, on any strict reading, the first part of 44(i) is thereby triggered and the second part doesn't matter.

I agree that the High Court needs to clarify the thing, but I don't expect them to back away from Sykes v Cleary. But surely there has to be some additional test, like "could not reasonably have known", or "provably did not know, with no reasonable expectation to have checked".

- Glen July 25, 2017 at 09:34 PM

The article refers to s44(1) setting out a rather archaic definition of foreign allegiance. It would be good however to further discuss what the constitution meant by 'foreign'. At the time of writing, there were many that considered that foreign meant a person outside of the British Empire.

The examples given in the Sykes v Cleary ruling dealt with a Swiss and a Greek, both from outside of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Is there a High Court decision relating to persons from Commonwealth countries?

Clearly if this ruling had been applied at federation, then the renowned King O'Malley who claimed Canada as his birthplace would have been ineligible and never been Minister for Home Affairs.

There has been a lot of discussion about what was meant by foreign by the drafters of the constitution particularly as it relates to external affairs rather than foreign affairs. Evatt and McTiernan JJ. explained that "the phrase "external affairs" was adopted in preference to "foreign affairs" so as to make it clear that the relationship between the Commonwealth and other parts of the British Empire as well as the Commonwealth and foreign countries, was to be comprehended" 55 CLR 608 in Kidwai, M.

COMMENT: Sue v Hill in 1998. Heather Hill was an Australian Citizen but had not renounced her British citizenship and was disqualified.

- John Gerard July 25, 2017 at 10:04 PM

In your 2nd last para "and rejecting.all other .. etc" (courts words) how would that be done? Being naturalised does not automatically do it. Perhaps it could be included in the swearing in ceremony of new members. But also include opposition members somehow of course.

COMMENT: Section 44 states "shall be incapable of being chosen". If not for those words, this is an issue that could be resolved after the election and maybe even with a swearing in. The words "entitled to" in section 44 still raises problems of whether an oath in Australian law can stop an entitlement.

- Jaquix July 25, 2017 at 10:11 PM

Canavan's claim to have no knowledge is suspect in my view, applying for citizenship at age 25 surely would have required his consent. I would expect that his signature must be on the application document.

COMMENT: When this case goes to the High Court he will be required to supply all documentation and swear to the accuracy of the statements he supplies to the Court. That is a higher test than holding a press conference or issuing a press release.

- Phil Monroe July 26, 2017 at 09:00 AM

Possibly relevant here is some of the language. People who are citizens by descent often do not apply for citizenship - they simply present evidence that they are citizens and then get a passport or other confirmation of their status, even if they were previously unknown to that country or didn't always know it themselves.

Presumably the High Court will need to pick this apart as part of their consideration of the issue. The second part of 44(i) certainly seems to open the door to cover anyone who could go and apply for a passport, even if they had not previously taken any such step to assert their other citizenship.

- Rob July 26, 2017 at 09:35 AM

What would happen if a senate recount brought on by some retrospective ineligibility of a senator caused some third party senator who was previously elected to not be elected under the recount?

COMMENT: The re-count is not formally conducted under the electoral act. It is conducted under orders issued by the court and the results are reported back to the court for declaration of the result. If in a disqualification re-count there was a perverse outcome that saw an elected and not under challenge Senator defeated, then the court would hear argument on whether the re-count was the proper method of resolving who should fill the vacancy created by disqualification.

- Frank July 26, 2017 at 10:37 AM

It might not be just children and grand-children of foreign citizens who are affected. Some countries confer entitlement to rights and privileges on spouses of their citizens.

If the High Court rules in the very strictest sense, three quarters of the parliament could be wiped out. Prepare for the biggest by-election extravaganza in history.

- Andrew McLennan July 26, 2017 at 11:14 AM

Application made by his mother without his knowledge or consent at age 25?? Surely he would of been told by his mother she was making an application for him. Whilst sometimes this can be true, most often it is not and he may have had full knowledge of it occuring as it may have needed his signature as well as his mother's, especially if she knew he wanted to enter politics.

COMMENT: His mother applied for citizenship and in the process registered the births of her children by which they were also granted citizenship. I understand that is Italian law. Whether that should be valid under Australian law and recognised as a foreign citizenship is the central argument of the case when it gets to court. As to the facts as Senator Canavan explained them, he will be required to lodge all relevant details with the High Court and swear to the accuracy of the statements he lodges. They are far more important than yesterday's press release and press conference.

- A Citizen July 26, 2017 at 11:56 AM

Sue v Hill is a decision of the High Court by 4 judges(Gleeson CJ,Gaudron,Gummow and Hayne JJ) to 3(McHugh,Kirby and Callinan JJ).Nonethess it is binding and cannot be the subject of argument that it is wrongly decided unless the Court gives leave.I wonder whether any of the parties in trouble will seek leave to argue the correctness of Sue v Hill.

COMMENT: It will be interesting if they do seek leave.

- Malcolm Davies July 26, 2017 at 12:03 PM

Senator Canavan's case is a particularly tricky one, but also rather unusual according to the apparent facts. The cases of Senators Ludlam and Waters are much more typical, and the problem there simply seems to have been that they well knew they had been born overseas, but didn't bother to think hard enough about their situations. The current nomination procedures specified in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 all but encourage that, by simply requiring a relatively broad declaration that the candidate isn't disqualified under s44. That's why I've been arguing for a requirement for a more detailed statement from candidates born overseas: not to make life more difficult for them, but to save them from themselves by making sure that they investigate their own situations thoroughly before nominating, rather than taking a cavalier approach which as we have seen can cause mortification for themselves and their parties; could potentially disrupt the political balance in either house; and which wastes the time of the High Court and the public money associated with the need to get High Court rulings.

COMMENT: I think it would at least be useful if the AEC at least re-wrote its advice on this into a check list of what might be required. Most of the problems that are cropping up now relate to party candidates and they are bulk nominated by the party.

- Michael Maley July 26, 2017 at 12:32 PM

The policy problem of denouncing one's foreign citizenship is that it may be able to be reversed, giving such people the opportunity to make laws against Australia's interest and have the safety net of being able to bail out to another country....an option many of us do not have.

But of-course, the provision needs some creative interpretation to avoid North Korea giving all our parliamentarians rights and priveleges of subjects of North Korea.

- Mark Dunstone July 26, 2017 at 01:25 PM

If Canavan is held to have been improperly elected, is there any possibility of implications for acts he has performed as a Minister, due to the fact that his tenure would have been unconstitutional once it went past the maximum three months that a Minister can hold office without being an MP?

I know that the High Court has ruled that the presence of an improperly elected MP doesn't affect the decisions of the House in which they sit, but am not sure if the same principle would automatically extend to an individual office rather than a collective decision-making body?

- Dean Ashley July 26, 2017 at 03:51 PM

The fundamental problem here is that s. 44 makes eligibility for membership of the Australian Parliament dependent on the operation of foreign law. It is New Zealand law, Canadian Law and (possibly) Italian law which disqualify Senators Ludlam, Waters and (possibly) Canavan.

That seems to be to be wrong in principle. Australia is a sovereign, independent country. Australian law should directly determine who is eligible to sit in the Parliament of Australia, and should not defer to foreign law to answer the question.

But, issues of principle aside, the provision is clearly dysfunctional. The Australian electoral authorities don’t (and, I think, realistically can’t) investigate foreign citizenship laws and make authoritative ruling about how they affect intending candidates, and the candidates themselves either can’t or at any rate frequently don’t do so, with results that we now observe.

I wouldn’t assume that we yet know the full extent of the problem. A bit of googling suggests that Italian citizenship law is pretty far-reaching and that, correctly understood, Senator Canavan’s mother’s application did didn’t make him an Italian citizen; it merely elicited an acknowledgement from the Italian government that he is, and always has been, an Italian citizen by descent. (Which would explain why this could happen without Senator Canavan having himself applied for Italian citizenship.) If that’s right, every parliamentarian with Italian ancestry may need to investigate his citizenship status. (Not looking at anyone in particular, Senator di Natale.) And of course there may be other countries where similar issues arise; Ireland has pretty far-reaching citizenship-by-descent laws, for example.

Limiting s. 44 with a “reasonable steps” rule doesn’t really solve the problem. What is reasonable depends on the circumstances of the case, and each case is different (as current events show). Unless a candidate’s circumstances fit exactly or very closely to a set of circumstances previously considered by a court, a candidate can’t really know whether what he has done to determine whether he is entitled to foreign citizenship and, if he is, to disclaim it is “reasonable”.

For both principled and pragmatic reasons, therefore, s. 44 needs to be amended, or else the High Court needs to be invited to come up with some better workaround than the “reasonable steps” rule. My own view, for what it is worth, is that there is absolutely no need to prohibit dual citizens from serving in Parliament; most other developed democracies have no such ban, and in a country with a history of immigration like Australia’s it make particularly little sense. But if there is to be a restriction on foreign loyalties or allegiances then it absolutely should not depend on the operation of foreign laws, and so should not be expressed in terms of foreign citizenship. All parliamentarians could be required to make a declaration renouncing foreign allegiances, and that could suffice to qualify them to serve regardless of what effect (if any) it has under the laws of other countries on any foreign citizenship which, knowingly or unknowingly, they may hold.

- Ultan Stephenson July 26, 2017 at 04:34 PM

Antony, slightly off topic, but I've been told that some Australian State Parliaments allow dual citizens and others, in line with Federal Parliament, won't allow dual citizens. Can you please confirm if this is the case and if so, which States do and don't allow dual citizens?

I've tried Google searching the answer with no luck. For me, one would need to go back generations before you get to overseas born ancestors, so suffice to say I do not have dual citizenship, but for those dual citizens I know who are politically engaged, it would be good for them to know in the slim chance they ever stood for State parliament.

COMMENT: It varies from state to state. I can't answer your questions without devoting considerable time to research, time I don't currently have.

It says that "until the parliament provides otherwise...", so could it therefore provide new rules that have the effect of undoing s34(ii)?

I appreciate that s34 is a qualification provision and s44 is a disqualification provision and to nominate one must be qualified and also not disqualified. Nonetheless, if the Parliament chose to allow dual nationals to be qualified under its s34 powers, it would seem to open up a clash with the jurisprudence on s44.

Might that then force the High Court try and argue that s44 trumps s34 or that no power exercised under s34 can undo the effect of s44, or is that automatic?

She was on her own, but Mary Gaudron appeared to state s34 could have this effect in Sue v Hill.

I assume if it were this simple, calls for it would be greater but would be interested if it has been discussed as an option.

COMMENT: Sections 30 and 34 were transitional provisions designed to work for the first election in 1901. In both cases the parliament provided a successor in passing the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

What would be interesting is if the Parliament removed Section 376 of the Electoral Act on references of qualifications to the Court of Disputed Returns. That would set up an interesting conflict between sections 34 and 44 of the Constitution.

- David Henderson July 26, 2017 at 08:55 PM

One solution would be for AEC to include a renunciation of all Citizenship other than Australian on the nomination form. ANd for the Advert placed by AEC in newspapers notifying the names of candidates to include this renunciation advice to all foreign powers,

If this is not sorted out Israeli's could get rid of Extreme left wing pro Palestinians in ALP by making them Israeli citizens, Red China could get rid of Xenophon and Katter by making them Chinese citizens and any nation in conflict could eliminate the total parliament by making all citizens of Australia citizens of the nation we are in conflict with. eg Indonesia could have eliminated Commonwealth Parliament by making all Australians Indonesian citizens.

COMMENT: Both matters are dealt with in the Sykes v Cleary judgment. The court ruled that candidates must be Australian citizens and have taken all steps to renounce other allegiances. A nomination form would not be sufficient.

On your second paragraph, the judgment discussed such possibilities and made it clear that not all foreign grants of citizenship had to be recognised in Australian law. Grants aimed at disqualifying Australian MPs would clearly be in that category.

- apjackson July 27, 2017 at 10:29 AM

Yes, it would be "absurd" even in the legal sense if a clause aimed at insulating Australian MPs from dependence on foreign governments were construed in a way that made them even more vulnerable to the influence of foreign governments!

- Tom Round July 27, 2017 at 11:15 AM

'Both were born in foreign countries and therefore had foreign citizenship by birth'.

Birth in another country does not necessarily entitle you to that country's nationality. In fact only a small number grant it outright, otherwise criteria have to be met, usually on descent and/or residency. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

COMMENT: Thank you for your comment. I've removed the word 'therefore' from the article.

is ... entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power;

...

shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives."

But every Australian citizen is entitled to these rights in the UK:

"the right to vote in all elections (i.e., parliamentary, local, referendum and European elections) as long as they have registered to vote (they must possess valid leave to enter/remain or not require such leave on the date of their electoral registration application).

the right, unless otherwise disqualified, to stand for election to the British House of Commons as long as they possess indefinite leave to remain or do not require leave under the Immigration Act 1971 to enter or remain in the UK.

the right, if a qualifying peer or bishop, to sit in the House of Lords.

eligibility to hold public office (e.g., as a judge, magistrate, minister, police constable, member of the armed forces, etc.)."

If our constitution makes it illegal for every Australian to be elected, it may need amendment...

COMMENT: But to have that entitlement you have to be resident and registered in the UK. If you are not you do not have that entitlement. The Court would bat that one away very quickly.

- Nicholas Egan July 28, 2017 at 10:03 AM

In response to Nicholas Egan, precisely because UK law allows non-citizens to vote, sit in Parliament, etc, these are not "the rights and privileges of a subject or citizen" of the UK. If you don't have to be a British citizen to enjoy these rights, these are not rights of British citizenship.

I think the s. 44 reference to people who are "entitled to the rights or privileges" of a foreign citizenship probably covers people who, because of the circumstances of their birth or descent or whatever, are absolutely entitled to a foreign citizenship, even if they haven't yet completed a registration or similar administrative procedure to claim that status or activate those rights.

COMMENT: In his dissenting judgment in Sykes v Cleary, Justice Deane was of the view that foreign allegiance must involve "an element of acceptance or at least acquiescence on the part of the relevant person". In that he was talking about the first two parts of 44(i). I think that argument might be re-visited in argument about the third part on entitlement.

- Ultan Stephenson July 28, 2017 at 12:39 PM

If a lower house MP is ruled to have been ineligible to stand, is there a recount, or do we have to have a bielection?

COMMENT: By-election.

- Daniel July 28, 2017 at 03:11 PM

Regarding the first part of Section 44(i), which sets out a disqualification for any person who “Is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen [of a foreign power]“, I'm curious as to whether this might this apply to Catholics.

As far as I'm aware, Vatican City and the Holy See is a sovereign country, following a system of government comparable to an absolute monarchy (though non-hereditary), with the Pope as head of state.

Given the very broad wording of the disqualification criteria set out in section 44 of the constitution, I would think it not unreasonable to assume that the constitution disqualifies Catholics from standing for election or sitting in parliament. If someone identifies as Catholic are they not pledging or professing their allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power?

This wouldn't have been an issue at the time the Australian constitution was written as Vatican City did not become a country until 1929.

Over to you Antony.

COMMENT: I understand that has been tried before and dismissed. It was also tried against communists and dismissed.

Lets assume the current reports are true, and he renounced his other citizenship(s) by email before nominating as a candidate, but the date of renunciation (according to the "foreign power"'s records) is after nomination. What is your interpretation of that situation - i.e. is it enough to request renunciation before nominating?

COMMENT: I believe that under British law he remained a citizen until the British government acknowledged his renunciation. According to Senator Roberts' account, he requested renunciation before nomination but not by the established method of applying with the specified form. The High Court may well be asked to rule on whether the date of his request is 'all reasonable steps' or whether he was still a foreign citizen under Section 44 until the British government confirmed his renunciation.

- BenM July 28, 2017 at 03:27 PM

I think you are the first commentator to point out that previous cases dealt with the foreign born rather than native born entitled to citizenship by decent.

Big difference as court already has reasonable steps rule for by birth citizenship to prevent foreign law controlling eligibility.

In case, of native born, who cares what a foreign law says as long as you don't seek the claim citizenship by decent.

- Jim Rose July 28, 2017 at 05:50 PM

Hi Antony

I've just read on the SBS news a Victorian Labor MP has been denied entry into the US which is extraordinary. The more interesting question I have is that he is a dual Syrian/Australian: clearly permissible in Victoria? Further, does the Australian constitution override state based constitutions?

COMMENT: Section 44 of the Constitution sets out disqualifications that apply to candidates standing for the Commonwealth Parliament. It has no relevance to state parliaments.

- Daniel Bennett July 29, 2017 at 06:11 PM

Did NZ-born Joh Bjelke-Petersen ever become naturalised as an Australian citizen, I wonder?

I can't picture him ever saying to himself "I'm now a subject of a different Queen from the one I was born a subject of... The old monarch is now a 'foreign power'... better change my citizenship!".

Had the various Dolores Umbridges of today been on their hunt for traces of Muggle blood back in 1987 - only five years before Sykes v Cleary - they might have put a big spoke through the "Joh for PM" campaign.

COMMENT: Except he never nominated anyway.

- Tom Round July 30, 2017 at 06:50 PM

In relation to Malcolm Roberts and in particular anyone else with rights to claim British Citizenship by virtue of their father or mother (since 1986 I recall) or grand parent being born British (like my wife), you can't renounce that right to apply. It's simply British law that you are entitled and there is no renunciation provision. It's inherent in your descent. You may never exercise the right to apply, but it will always be there. They might reject you on character grounds say, and being Australian might be enough (lol), or rob a bank, so that might be a way out. Bit drastic though.

COMMENT: That might be an issue the High Court addresses. Justice Dean in his minority opinion in Sykes v Cleary argued that without evidence of acquiescence, candidates shouldn't be viewed as still being foreign citizens. I would think that argument would apply very strongly to an inherited citizenship that a candidate had never accepted. I expect that to be an argument put in the court case.

- Noel Bugeia July 30, 2017 at 07:42 PM

Antony has stated that, in the event that a member of the House of Reps is disqualified under s44, there would be a by-election. I certainly recall that, in the case of Phil Cleary, his seat was declared empty and would have been filled by by-election if the 1993 general election wasn't so near. I can't, however, understand the reasoning.

The High Court has decided that, in Senate elections, the votes should be re-counted with the disqualified candidate eliminated from consideration. Everybody's preferences, as set out on the ballot paper, are followed (with the exception that perverse outcomes like the non-election of someone originally declared successful are excluded). I can see no reason why the same logic shouldn't apply in the House of Reps. If a candidate is found to have been ineligible to nominate, just distribute all their votes first and proceed from there.

This would, of course, severely punish the party which had nominated the ineligible candidate, but I doubt that the High Court would find that to be a relevant consideration. So, I'm puzzled.

COMMENT: You have the argument around the wrong way. Disqualification of a House member has always produced a by-election.

But in the 1988 case concerning the disqualification of the NDP's Robert Wood, there was considerable argument that the Senate should be treated differently. In the end two important issues saw the High Court treat Senate disqualifications differently.

These were that all Senators were elected together, that there was no provision for Senate by-elections, and also that the change to Section 15 in 1977 suggested that the party composition of an elected Senate should be preserved.

Both the Constitution and the Electoral Act had provisions to deal with the disqualification of a House member and the holding of a by-election. The reverse applied for the Senate and the High Court had to produce a solution to deal with the Senate's different constitutional position.

The Electoral Act still does not have provisions to deal with the disqualification of a Senate candidate and all disqualifications have been resolved by Court hearings and orders.

- Greg Platt July 30, 2017 at 08:37 PM

In answer to Jim Rose, who asks "in case of native born, who cares what a foreign law says?" - the Constitution cares. The s. 44 ban on foreign citizens in the Commonwealth Parliament makes no distinction between those who are citizens by virtue of foreign birth, by virtue of foreign descent, or on any other basis.

Faced with a suitable case, the High Court could modify or extend its "reasonable steps" test so that there are different expectations of what is "reasonable" depending on whether foreign citizenship is acquired by birth or by descent, but that hasn't happened yet.

- Ultan Stephenson July 31, 2017 at 10:36 AM

In addition, the recount procedure for replacing a never-qualified Senator is more or less the same procedure that's used if a Senate candidate dies before polling day. (An analogous provision at State level saw Kelly Vincent replacing the late Paul Collier as the Dignity Party's highest candidate for the South Australian Legislative Council in 2010). So there's an argument for coherence and consistency behind the High Court's approach.

- Tom Round July 31, 2017 at 11:12 AM

If the "evidence of acquiescence" argument flies, it would seem reasonable for someone whose last connection with their country of birth was as an infant to try the same line (ie. it appears to be at odds with the "reasonable steps" decision).

- kme July 31, 2017 at 11:25 AM

Does the dual citizenship restriction apply also to state parliaments or is only for the federal parliament? I'm particularly curious about the case of South Australia.

COMMENT: Section 44 only applies to candidates for and members of the Commonwealth parliament. The states have their own rules. Consult the candidate handbooks of the South Australian Electoral Commission for information on SA qualifications.

In her resignation from politics, Kelly O'Dwyer said she feared another miscarriage in Canberra, far from home. Her announcement is shocking for more than just party-political reasons, writes Emma A. Jane.